Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conjunctival Proinflammatory and Proapoptotic Effects of Latanoprost and Preserved and Unpreserved Timolol: An Ex Vivo and In Vitro Study

Pisella, P.-J.·2004·Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity of latanoprost and preserved and unpreserved timolol on conjunctival cells. Expression of inflammatory markers and MUC5AC-related mucin production were evaluated by impression cytology in a case-control ex vivo study. The proapoptotic effect of the same drugs was also evaluated in vitro in a conjunctival cell line and compared with that of benzalkonium chloride (BAC). METHODS: Impression cytology (IC) specimens were obtained from a series of normal subjects and from patients with glaucoma treated for at least 1 year with latanoprost eye drops or preserved or unpreserved timolol. All groups were comparable in age and duration of treatment. Expression of HLA-DR, intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1, and mucin was evaluated in a masked manner by flow cytometry. For the in vitro study, a human conjunctiva-derived cell line was treated with 0.02% BAC-containing latanoprost or timolol, unpreserved timolol, or 0.02% BAC alone for 15 minutes, followed or not by 4 or 24 hours of cell recovery in normal medium. Cell viability and chromatin condensation were evaluated using microplate cold light cytofluorometry with the neutral red and the Hoechst 33342 tests, respectively. The Hoechst-neutral red ratio was defined for the apoptosis assay, and cytoskeleton changes were assessed by confocal microscopy. RESULTS: No difference was found between normal eyes and those receiving unpreserved timolol. Preserved latanoprost and timolol significantly increased the inflammatory marker expression and decreased MUC5AC expression, but to a significantly higher extent in the preserved timolol group compared with latanoprost. In vitro, 0.02% BAC-containing timolol and latanoprost triggered conjunctival cell apoptosis-however, to a significantly lesser extent than did 0.02% BAC alone. Unpreserved timolol did not cause any cell toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: These ex vivo and in vitro studies demonstrate that BAC-containing latanoprost and timolol exhibit higher proinflammatory and proapoptotic effects on conjunctival cells than does unpreserved timolol. Latanoprost caused less toxicity, however, than preserved timolol, and both drugs were less toxic than BAC alone. These results suggest a potential protective effect of the prostaglandin analogue and to a lesser extent of timolol against the toxicity of BAC in conjunctival cells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.03-1067

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Pisella, P.-J.
Venue
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2004-05-01
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
1360-1368
ISSN
0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062004643
Cited by
287
References
10
FWCI
12.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conjunctival Proinflammatory and Proapoptotic Effects of Latanoprost and Preserved and Unpreserved Timolol: An Ex Vivo and In Vitro Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.03-1067
The paper
Pisella, P.-J. (2004). Conjunctival Proinflammatory and Proapoptotic Effects of Latanoprost and Preserved and Unpreserved Timolol: An Ex Vivo and In Vitro Study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-1067

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.